The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls: The ... - josephprestonkirk

472 THE APOCRYPHA AND PSEUDEPIGRAPHA
They also make it almost certain that the author did not compose it in
Greek, despite some belated support for a Greek original. 19
Which was the original language, Aramaic or Hebrew? Milik offered
some comments that are relevant to this topic in Ten Years of Discovery in the
Wilderness of Judaea:
The works that were written before the community came to Qumran were
mainly pseudepigraphal, (with themes especially of priestly interest and
usually in Aramaic) liturgical and sapiential. Some works, such as Tobit,
the Description of the New Jerusalem and an astrological book, survive in both
Hebrew and Aramaic copies. This can be explained, if we consider it as a
part of the literary and nationalist renaissance which was mentioned above;
works that had earlier been composed in Aramaic were later translated into
Hebrew. The opposite, “democratic,” tendency of translating the sacred
books into Aramaic is less often found at Qumrân. The milieu was too
highly cultured for this to be necessary—a strong contrast to the popular
and Aramaic-speaking environment of the early Church. 20
Another more specific factor could be the relative dates of the five copies.
Fitzmyer dates the hands in which they are transcribed as follows:
a = late semi-formal Hasmonean, ca. 50 B.C.E.
b = early formal Herodian, ca. 25 B.C.E.–C.E. 25
c = late Hasmonean or early Herodian book hand with semicursive features,
ca. 50 B.C.E.
d = early Hasmonean, ca. 100 B.C.E.
e = early Herodian formal hand, ca. 30 B.C.E.–20 C.E. 21
So, the Aramaic text is attested from ca. 100 B.C.E. while the Hebrew is
attested from ca. 30 B.C.E. at the earliest. Obviously this is not decisive
in determining which is earlier, but at least one can say that the Aramaic
is documented at a slightly earlier time.
While the general linguistic history and situation and the date at which
the versions are attested slightly favor an Aramaic original, there are a few
minor indicators in the Hebrew copy that suggest Aramaic influence.
These could be explained in ways other than direct influence from a base
Aramaic Tobit, but they are clearly consistent with it. Fitzmyer lists several
examples of late postexilic Hebrew in 4QTobit e (= 4Q200):
the use of an infinitive absolute to resume the narrative sequence of a finite
verb, or the use of the verb “to be” (hyh) with a participle to express an
19. Moore, ibid., 34.
20. Milik, Ten Years of Discovery, 139–40.
21. Fitzmyer, “Tobit,” 7, 41, 57, 61, 63.